Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of his complaint made against a parish councillor. We will not investigate the complaint because it is unlikely we will find fault in the way the Council considered his complaint.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, says the Council did not follow the proper process in addressing his complaint made against a parish councillor. He says it failed to properly review all the evidence and that the final decision did not make clear why his complaint did not proceed to a hearing. He wants the Council to carry out a full hearing into the councillor’s conduct which he has described as disrespectful.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. In considering the complaint I reviewed the information provided by Mr X, including the Council’s response to his complaint. I gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered what he said.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr X complained to the Council which deals with complaints about alleged breaches of the code of conduct for parish councils in its area. Mr X said a parish councillor, who I refer to as Councillor Q, had breached the members Code of Conduct. He said Councillor Q was disrespectful, had intentionally misled the public, had used bullying behaviour and had failed to fulfil the duties of accountability and leadership.
6. In accordance with normal procedures, the Council’s Monitoring Officer (MO) considered the complaint and sought and took into account the views of the Independent Person. Having done so the MO decided no action should be taken because the complaint “does not disclose any potential breach of the code of conduct and is not serious enough to merit further investigation”.
7. Dissatisfied with the outcome of his complaint, Mr X complained to the Ombudsman.

Assessment

8. We do not offer a right of appeal against a council’s decision on member conduct complaints. We can consider if there was fault in the way the council considered a complaint and we will only investigate if there is sufficient evidence to warrant our involvement.
9. Mr X says the Council did not make clear whether its decision not to take further action was because there was no breach or due to insufficient evidence. However, the MO told Mr X that no potential breach of the code had been identified and that there were insufficient grounds to merit further investigation.
10. The MO considered Mr X’s complaint and adequately addressed the specific issues he had raised. The MO contacted Councillor Q and took account of the views of the Independent Person before deciding not to take any further action.
11. Mr X says the purpose of the complaint process should have been to establish whether he “potentially” had a case and that where conflicting statements were made a hearing should have taken place to hear from both sides and to weigh up the evidence and witness statements. He says it was wrong that the MO made the decision without a hearing. However, the decision made by the MO was one the MO was entitled to make and we cannot question the merits of it no matter how strongly Mr X may disagree with it. I have seen no evidence to suggest the correct procedure was not followed or that there are sufficient grounds to warrant an investigation.
12. In responding to my draft decision, Mr X has referred to the “Seven Principles of Public Life” on which the parish council’s code of conduct clearly states the code “is based”. This is not the same as saying the principles form part of the code and even if they were, there is no evidence to suggest a different outcome to the complaint would have been reached. Mr X says the parish council is ignoring the requests of residents but his complaint was made against the actions of a named councillor and the Council cannot consider a complaint about the parish council as a whole.
13. That the outcome to Mr X’s complaint against Councillor Q was not as he would have liked is not evidence of bias and discrimination by the Council and he has provided no evidence to support this allegation. Mr X has repeated his assertion that the MO should not have made a decision and that there should have been a hearing but he has misunderstood the role of the MO here who was entitled to come to the decision they did, and without reference to any further documentation Mr X may have had or to potential witness evidence he has referred to.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we will find fault in the way the Council considered the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman